get_human

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Return' suggests a read-only operation and 'live' hints at dynamic state, but the description does not disclose side effects, permissions, or whether the state is real-time vs cached. There is no mention of failure behavior or what 'live Behavior Agent state' entails.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and front-loaded, with a single sentence and no obvious filler. However, it is under-specified: for a tool with three parameters and no annotation coverage, this brevity comes at the cost of necessary detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return structure may be covered elsewhere, but the description still lacks parameter semantics, usage context, and any guidance on when it is appropriate to call this tool. The unexplained 'IRA' term and missing human_path explanation are significant gaps for agent selection and invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters. The sole required parameter, human_path, is mentioned only indirectly as 'one IRA human', and command_id and idempotency_key receive no semantic meaning at all.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Return') and a clear resource ('one IRA human'), and specifically calls out USD and live Behavior Agent state. It differentiates from list_humans by being singular and from mutation tools like spawn_human and set_human_behavior. However, the acronyym 'IRA' is unexplained, which leaves some ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies singular use ('for one IRA human') but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives such as list_humans for retrieving multiple humans, nor does it state any preconditions or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.